How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution?
Well, it depends on whether you want that simple, single, standard solution to be right!
How do we know that if we standardized that it would be correct?
Diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The right methods will, over time, prevail. The wrong methods won't. If we have 50 different methods then we increase the chance that one of those 50 methods will be right; and over time it means we speed up the process of finding the right answer.
If we only had one process then we'd need to take much more time and many more iterations to find the right process.
The most informative and thorough news articles are those which cover the most aspects of a story, and provide the most detail. In general, this implies that a longer article will be more informative and thorough, although exceptions are possible. In addition, providing insight into a story from multiple ideological viewpoints will contribute to the thoroughness of a story, and illogical and poorly formed arguments will detract from the informativeness of an article.
How exactly can a program decide what is informative and what isn't? How can it decide what is thorough, and what is not?
For regular Google searches Google can rely on links and averages. For news, especially live news, there isn't any sort of weight by popularity, unless Google starts weighing hosting sites based on past articles and applying those towards current articles.
Of course then they will have to be able to separate stories into categories and figure out what is relevant and what isn't. How can a program know what aspects of a site are relevant and not? You're asking for a piece a software to do something most people can't?
You're arguing then for making the iPod more complex, then. Take the work the computer is doing indexing, normalizing, rating, and organizing, and instead reassign it as follows: Organizing and rating, you Indexing and normalizing, iPod
I dunno, it seems to me most people like having the computer do the hard work of organizing and rating, indexing, and normalizing because they then get the results on iTunes as WELL as the iPod. But to each their own.
I mean, the iPod interface is the same as the iTunes interface. I dunno why one is okay, but the other is not.
The iPod is a firewire mass storage device. Points for Apple.
iTunes is required to construct the index of all the songs on the device. It's required to acheive the 12 hour battery life. It means that the index is loaded into memory and that the index is searched, browsed, and read, instead of spinning up the hard drive willy nilly whenever ID3 data is required. The ONLY reason the hard drive is ever touched outside of bootup is to load up music data into the buffers.
You could argue, "Let the device generate the index!" but I argue, "Give me more battery!"
Currently you seem to believe that anecdote is evidence.
You also seem to believe that value does not equal price. Higher value == higher price. Higher price of course does not mean higher value, but because you disbelieve that Apple products have any value, you also disbelieve that they can have a higher price.
Ultimately your beliefs only harm or help you. Feel free to believe whatever you want.
Me, I'm happily using my PowerBook, PowerMac, and iPod, and look forward to a Mini, G5 iMac, and years of HAPPY computing. Apple isn't pure fluff from my corner.
The box exists to exclude light from contaminating the image created from the pinhole.
I suppose they'll have to come up with an alternative means of separating the light from the lens and stray light reaching the trailing spacecraft. (From the article)
Yes, are you trying to argue then that funding NASA is unproductive?
They are still doing science and research today: Genesis, Mars rovers, and so on. If their scope is reduced in grandeur today than it was in the 60s, it isn't because NASA suffers from tunnel vision, it's because it is constrained by what we tell them to do.
We got to the moon. And back. Multiple times. We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work. We sent rovers to Mars. That still work. We built several working space vehicles. We space-walked. We build a space station. And then we built another one. We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back. We've populated our solar system with several probes that have performed beyond expectation. We have Tang. We have titanium hips, golf clubs, glass frames, laptops, and spyplanes.
There are many, many, more places where our investment into NASA has benefitted us enormously.
Other reasons: Solar passive heat. In the right climates, the tank actually works to your advantage. I'm thinking Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah. And even in other places, it still may work to your benefit to have a tank and a solar heater. Essentially you paint a secondary tank black, place it in an insulated niche, and let it absorb sunlight all day. If you place it in the attic it will also absorb waste heat from the house and additional waste heat from the sun hitting the roof. Of course you can still couple this to a tankless, but as far as I can tell tanks aren't totally without use in a properly designed house.
...By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs....It's concieveable to have a government that doesn't act like this.
No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people, because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the people involved start losing their sense of responsibility and attachment.
Let me reiterate my point: Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive. This goes for animals, plants, people, families, communities, organizations, cities, governments, corporations, etc. If any other purpose were primary then any actions taken towards that primary goal NOT tempered by a survival instinct would lead it down the path of dissolution. Sometimes that's okay, sacrifice and sharing and negotiation allow for non optimal solutions, but if the overriding primary goal, stated or not, intentional or not, isn't survival then what will prevent it from collapsing?
A government that serves it's people OVER serving itself will waste away. It will be under powered, under funded, under protected, and ineffective. There's nothing magical, special, or different about a government just because of the name. It's an organization like any other. It's only in the US's case that it's primary CUSTOMERs are it's citizens. If you want to think in terms of corporation, a corporation that doesn't serve it's customers gets no money, and dissolves. A government that doesn't serve it's citizens would also dissolve, and in our case it would be because we choose to elect new representatives or willfully revolt.
And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietnam, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money...
And since they don't meet our interests- why the heck are we buying from them and going in the hole to do so?
I dunno, they seem to be meeting my interests, and plenty of others. We like our cheaper goods. Don't mistake me, though, I'm not saying that's the most important point, but it's one of them....Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied...
It's much, much worse than that- by making our sole interest lower prices, we've given the foreign governments control over our supply lines...
Yes, you're right, if we view foreign governments as enemies. When you give your neighbor the responsibility of egg production, and your father in law responsibility of caring for the pigs, and the guy down the street the responsibility of making furniture, you are being held hostage by your community!
Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you shouldn't ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.
And yet- we are on an international basis. We have major portions of our military that could be stopped dead by an embargo...
You mean like our dependency on foreign oil, when we could switch to a hybrid electric biodiesel infrastructure? Our dependency on foreign oil, which makes all the plastics we consume?
Or do you mean the fact that by definition it is a symbiosis? They want our money, and in exchange give us goods and oil. Sure, they could stop... but then so would our money.
The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?
Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?
Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are close to them?
Really the only people who will ever look out for your interests is yourself, and anyone else who benefits when your interests are met. By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs.
And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietname, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money. Failing to meet our interests means we don't give them money.
I mean, that's all it boils down to. Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied. If that doesn't hold true then monetary incentives will cause some local competition to rise. Yes, the market isn't perfect, I understand.
Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you should ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.
The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?
It's a matter of scope, but letting your neighbor, a local farm, a company, and ultimately a company outside our borders to handle things we do not have the time, resources, or skill to do is all the same.
I get my shoes from Vietnam because I can't make my own. Rather, I go through Target, who goes through Adidas, who owns a plant in Vietname.
I get my eggs from Arkansas because I don't keep my own chickens. Rather, I go through Albertson's who goes through LandEggs, who maintains a farm in Arkansas.
I get my apricots from Chile because I don't have my own apricot tree. Rather I go to Albertson's who goes through a farm in Chile where the apricots are grown.
I get my car from Canada because I can't make my own. Rather I bought my car from HP, who was holding a sale for Enterprise, who was purchasing cars from Volvo, who was manufacturing them in Canada, who was purchasing raw materials from the US.
The only 'interests' that are maintained during this entire chain of transactions is monetary. As long as each is paid according to what they need/want, each will provide the service or good as they are required. Yes, that DOES mean we can get contaminated food, flawed clothes, and defective goods, but those can also be accounted for in the contract which determines what good/service for what money.
Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware? Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes? Why shouldn't India be writing all our software? Why shouldn't China be making all our clothes? Why shouldn't Japan be making all our cars?
As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.
It's like having all our crops grown in the midwest, all our movies on the west coast, and all our fishing on the coasts. Take advantage of and leverage local resources, and let others do stuff we can't otherwise afford to do.
Why should anyone shut down when standby lets you get your system back in less than 10 seconds?
At work I only suspend my XP box. At home I only put my Mac to sleep.
Why should we shut down daily? Why should we reboot daily? It's more productive if I can save state... Go back exactly where I left off the previous session.
The primary reason they EXIST is to serve the people.
But in purely abstract terms, any entity that does not see to it's own existence first and foremost is going to stop existing pretty soon.
Replace the term 'entity' with government, church, corporation, committee, cooperative, etc.
Oftentimes the best method to ensure continued existence is to offer a service people want. Corporations receive money for their services, so even by your own logic, a corporation's PRIMARY purpose is to serve the people. The more people served, the more money earned. The more people satisfied, the higher they can charge for their services.
Slashdot Mirror
How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution?
Well, it depends on whether you want that simple, single, standard solution to be right!
How do we know that if we standardized that it would be correct?
Diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The right methods will, over time, prevail. The wrong methods won't. If we have 50 different methods then we increase the chance that one of those 50 methods will be right; and over time it means we speed up the process of finding the right answer.
If we only had one process then we'd need to take much more time and many more iterations to find the right process.
But did you buy copy protected VHS tapes or DRMed DVDs?
If so you're part of the reason the labels believe that DRM works!
Yes, but you said, "The cheapest PowerPC G5", which happens to be the $1299 iMac G5.
Uh, the cheapest PowerPC G5 I could find on http://store.apple.com is only $1,299.
And it comes with a 17" LCD
Yet isn't that what exactly every Archos booster on Slashdot seems to advocate?
Specs, features, and capabilities, without considering design or usability?
The most informative and thorough news articles are those which cover the most aspects of a story, and provide the most detail. In general, this implies that a longer article will be more informative and thorough, although exceptions are possible. In addition, providing insight into a story from multiple ideological viewpoints will contribute to the thoroughness of a story, and illogical and poorly formed arguments will detract from the informativeness of an article.
How exactly can a program decide what is informative and what isn't? How can it decide what is thorough, and what is not?
For regular Google searches Google can rely on links and averages. For news, especially live news, there isn't any sort of weight by popularity, unless Google starts weighing hosting sites based on past articles and applying those towards current articles.
Of course then they will have to be able to separate stories into categories and figure out what is relevant and what isn't. How can a program know what aspects of a site are relevant and not? You're asking for a piece a software to do something most people can't?
You're arguing then for making the iPod more complex, then. Take the work the computer is doing indexing, normalizing, rating, and organizing, and instead reassign it as follows:
Organizing and rating, you
Indexing and normalizing, iPod
I dunno, it seems to me most people like having the computer do the hard work of organizing and rating, indexing, and normalizing because they then get the results on iTunes as WELL as the iPod. But to each their own.
I mean, the iPod interface is the same as the iTunes interface. I dunno why one is okay, but the other is not.
The iPod is a firewire mass storage device. Points for Apple.
iTunes is required to construct the index of all the songs on the device. It's required to acheive the 12 hour battery life. It means that the index is loaded into memory and that the index is searched, browsed, and read, instead of spinning up the hard drive willy nilly whenever ID3 data is required. The ONLY reason the hard drive is ever touched outside of bootup is to load up music data into the buffers.
You could argue, "Let the device generate the index!" but I argue, "Give me more battery!"
Hmm, you're free to believe what you want.
Currently you seem to believe that anecdote is evidence.
You also seem to believe that value does not equal price. Higher value == higher price. Higher price of course does not mean higher value, but because you disbelieve that Apple products have any value, you also disbelieve that they can have a higher price.
Ultimately your beliefs only harm or help you. Feel free to believe whatever you want.
Me, I'm happily using my PowerBook, PowerMac, and iPod, and look forward to a Mini, G5 iMac, and years of HAPPY computing. Apple isn't pure fluff from my corner.
I'm surprised no one is mentioning Pokemon!
The box exists to exclude light from contaminating the image created from the pinhole.
I suppose they'll have to come up with an alternative means of separating the light from the lens and stray light reaching the trailing spacecraft. (From the article)
Yes, are you trying to argue then that funding NASA is unproductive?
They are still doing science and research today: Genesis, Mars rovers, and so on. If their scope is reduced in grandeur today than it was in the 60s, it isn't because NASA suffers from tunnel vision, it's because it is constrained by what we tell them to do.
We got to the moon. And back. Multiple times.
We sent probes to Mars. And Venus. And beyond. And some of them still work.
We sent rovers to Mars. That still work.
We built several working space vehicles.
We space-walked.
We build a space station. And then we built another one.
We chased comets. And sent the collected materials back.
We've populated our solar system with several probes that have performed beyond expectation.
We have Tang.
We have titanium hips, golf clubs, glass frames, laptops, and spyplanes.
There are many, many, more places where our investment into NASA has benefitted us enormously.
Your intermediate plan didn't fall in price because they upgraded your features to the premium level.
Why aren't you paying $25 for the premium plan?
Why have rooms that no one goes? You're paying for a useless room?
Acknowledge the personality conflict with your partner to your partner and then don't let it get in the way of your work.
Your accelerator and brake in your car are up/down levers!
Here.
Other reasons:
Solar passive heat. In the right climates, the tank actually works to your advantage. I'm thinking Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah. And even in other places, it still may work to your benefit to have a tank and a solar heater. Essentially you paint a secondary tank black, place it in an insulated niche, and let it absorb sunlight all day. If you place it in the attic it will also absorb waste heat from the house and additional waste heat from the sun hitting the roof. Of course you can still couple this to a tankless, but as far as I can tell tanks aren't totally without use in a properly designed house.
...By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs. ...It's concieveable to have a government that doesn't act like this.
...Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied...
No, I don't think so. Unless it's a government not run by people, because given those same people we would have a corporation that would be unabashedly good or a church that is utterly humane. The problem is a psychological one, as groups get bigger the people involved start losing their sense of responsibility and attachment.
Let me reiterate my point: Any entity who's first primary purpose is not self interest and survival will cease to survive. This goes for animals, plants, people, families, communities, organizations, cities, governments, corporations, etc. If any other purpose were primary then any actions taken towards that primary goal NOT tempered by a survival instinct would lead it down the path of dissolution. Sometimes that's okay, sacrifice and sharing and negotiation allow for non optimal solutions, but if the overriding primary goal, stated or not, intentional or not, isn't survival then what will prevent it from collapsing?
A government that serves it's people OVER serving itself will waste away. It will be under powered, under funded, under protected, and ineffective. There's nothing magical, special, or different about a government just because of the name. It's an organization like any other. It's only in the US's case that it's primary CUSTOMERs are it's citizens. If you want to think in terms of corporation, a corporation that doesn't serve it's customers gets no money, and dissolves. A government that doesn't serve it's citizens would also dissolve, and in our case it would be because we choose to elect new representatives or willfully revolt.
And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietnam, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money...
And since they don't meet our interests- why the heck are we buying from them and going in the hole to do so?
I dunno, they seem to be meeting my interests, and plenty of others. We like our cheaper goods. Don't mistake me, though, I'm not saying that's the most important point, but it's one of them.
It's much, much worse than that- by making our sole interest lower prices, we've given the foreign governments control over our supply lines...
Yes, you're right, if we view foreign governments as enemies. When you give your neighbor the responsibility of egg production, and your father in law responsibility of caring for the pigs, and the guy down the street the responsibility of making furniture, you are being held hostage by your community!
Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you shouldn't ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.
And yet- we are on an international basis. We have major portions of our military that could be stopped dead by an embargo...
You mean like our dependency on foreign oil, when we could switch to a hybrid electric biodiesel infrastructure? Our dependency on foreign oil, which makes all the plastics we consume?
Or do you mean the fact that by definition it is a symbiosis? They want our money, and in exchange give us goods and oil. Sure, they could stop... but then so would our money.
The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?
I try to- all that I'm allowed by stup
Ah, so you think our government really looks out for our/your interests?
Or do you think, realistically, that our government looks out for it's own interests, and those who are in the government, and all those who are close to them?
Really the only people who will ever look out for your interests is yourself, and anyone else who benefits when your interests are met. By that definition our government will half-heartedly look out for our interests because when some of our interests are met, so are some of theirs.
And the same with any entity, including those of Taiwan, Vietname, China, India, etc. By meeting our interests, we give them money. Failing to meet our interests means we don't give them money.
I mean, that's all it boils down to. Our interests in foreign manufacturing is lower prices, and as long as that holds true everyone is satisfied. If that doesn't hold true then monetary incentives will cause some local competition to rise. Yes, the market isn't perfect, I understand.
Your other point, that it is stupid to put all of our eggs into one basket, is a wise one, but does not in any way negate sending our manufacturing overseas! It just means we shouldn't only have one manufacturer... in local terms it means we avoid vendor lock, and it's why you should ONLY rely on Microsoft, ONLY on Intel, ONLY on IBM, etc.
The entire argument is very simple. Do you do everything yourself, or not? Do you make your own shoes, eggs, furniture, clothes, cut your own hair, grow your own vegetables, or not?
It's a matter of scope, but letting your neighbor, a local farm, a company, and ultimately a company outside our borders to handle things we do not have the time, resources, or skill to do is all the same.
I get my shoes from Vietnam because I can't make my own. Rather, I go through Target, who goes through Adidas, who owns a plant in Vietname.
I get my eggs from Arkansas because I don't keep my own chickens. Rather, I go through Albertson's who goes through LandEggs, who maintains a farm in Arkansas.
I get my apricots from Chile because I don't have my own apricot tree. Rather I go to Albertson's who goes through a farm in Chile where the apricots are grown.
I get my car from Canada because I can't make my own. Rather I bought my car from HP, who was holding a sale for Enterprise, who was purchasing cars from Volvo, who was manufacturing them in Canada, who was purchasing raw materials from the US.
The only 'interests' that are maintained during this entire chain of transactions is monetary. As long as each is paid according to what they need/want, each will provide the service or good as they are required. Yes, that DOES mean we can get contaminated food, flawed clothes, and defective goods, but those can also be accounted for in the contract which determines what good/service for what money.
Why shouldn't Taiwan be building all our hardware?
Why shouldn't Vietnam be making all our shoes?
Why shouldn't India be writing all our software?
Why shouldn't China be making all our clothes?
Why shouldn't Japan be making all our cars?
As long as we can still excel in something, anything, specialization and localization makes sense.
It's like having all our crops grown in the midwest, all our movies on the west coast, and all our fishing on the coasts. Take advantage of and leverage local resources, and let others do stuff we can't otherwise afford to do.
You organize a 128bit file system with a database.
Why bother with folders as a root? You can create a folder hierarchy *with* a database too.
If you're shutting down every weekend, doesn't that count as at least one reboot a week for you? Maybe even more?
Why not just leave the computer in suspend instead, for the weekend, every weekend, for a month and see what the stability of your system is, instead?
I only suspend my system every night, and haven't had it crash yet. Get uptimes in the months.
But if we use your system as an example, you are getting a much higher number than 0, since you voluntarily shut down each week!
Hibernate and standby.
Save power and have instant access.
Why should anyone shut down when standby lets you get your system back in less than 10 seconds?
At work I only suspend my XP box.
At home I only put my Mac to sleep.
Why should we shut down daily?
Why should we reboot daily?
It's more productive if I can save state... Go back exactly where I left off the previous session.
The primary reason they EXIST is to serve the people.
But in purely abstract terms, any entity that does not see to it's own existence first and foremost is going to stop existing pretty soon.
Replace the term 'entity' with government, church, corporation, committee, cooperative, etc.
Oftentimes the best method to ensure continued existence is to offer a service people want. Corporations receive money for their services, so even by your own logic, a corporation's PRIMARY purpose is to serve the people. The more people served, the more money earned. The more people satisfied, the higher they can charge for their services.
There is no exclusion here.